Something being illegal under EU law is used as an ace in the hole for some reason. These multi-billion companies will pay the fines in the EU and continue operating. On the off chance they roll back these changes in the EU, they’ll keep using them in the US, China, Russia, wherever.
Only thing that’ll stop this is global laws against it, which is impossible because of bribery. Oh sorry, lobbying.
Eh, not really. Some of the EU laws have serious teeth, there’s good reason why pretty much all big tech companies ensure they are GDPR compliant. It doesn’t matter how big you are being fined up to 4% of annual turnover is no joke to anyone.
Yes, though it was unclear if that was a feature or a bug. Since their dev team was decimated, the site has been struggling to even do basic maintenance and security updates. It’s entirely possible that was a bug, especially since it only appeared to be happening with certain users and servers.
The author of the article determined that these ads are coming from the trashy ad networks that brought you such classic clickbait ads as “Doctors hate this one weird trick” and “[Current President] has slashed auto insurance rates in [your state], here’s how” that you see at the bottom of low quality news articles. So, it’s not just that X has spam ads, but they aren’t even directly selling them, which the article summarizes is a sign of desperation to get any ads, no matter how shit in quality, no matter how low paying to X they are, on the platform. At least the low tier news sites have the decency to identify them as ads and label the ad networks that is putting them up.
I despise Twitter’s leadership as much as the rest, but increasing ads is not at all a “cause a problem” situation Twitter doesn’t owe you ad-free usage of their platform. So no, not a scam/scummy behaviour, just bad value.
And you don’t owe Twitter your patronage. So just move on from it.
You do realize that the actual issue is that this is kind of thing is going to be normalized, so that it can spread like a plague across the corporate-touched internet, objectively making the entire thing as a whole objectively worse… right?
Because it sure doesn’t seem like it with that reply.
increasing ads is not at all a “cause a problem” situation
Tech executives would disagree with you - creating a problem that users have to buy their way out of is one of the most popular business models going at the moment. The mobile gaming industry, for example, is basically $140B worth of intentionally created frustration.
There’s been so much written about this obviously scummy practice. It’s everywhere.
It’s either naive or disingenuous to suggest they’re not obviously trying to annoy cash out of people.
They are allowed to try and monetize in various ways, but there are still ethical standards that are just consistently not followed in online advertising (like doing due-diligence to make sure the company advertising isn’t some sort of transparent scam). But this change seems to be stepping away from one of the standards that is actually a legal mandate, properly labeling adverts and sponsored content as such.
So on one hand they’re cluttering user feeds with the spammiest, scammiest ads they can and on the other hand they’re rolling out paid subscriptions to remove ads.
Cause a problem; sell the solution. Transparent scumbags.
Didn’t they also remove some of the things that indicated a post was “sponsored” or whatever?
Pretty sure that’s illegal under EU law
Something being illegal under EU law is used as an ace in the hole for some reason. These multi-billion companies will pay the fines in the EU and continue operating. On the off chance they roll back these changes in the EU, they’ll keep using them in the US, China, Russia, wherever.
Only thing that’ll stop this is global laws against it, which is impossible because of bribery. Oh sorry, lobbying.
Eh, not really. Some of the EU laws have serious teeth, there’s good reason why pretty much all big tech companies ensure they are GDPR compliant. It doesn’t matter how big you are being fined up to 4% of annual turnover is no joke to anyone.
Yes, though it was unclear if that was a feature or a bug. Since their dev team was decimated, the site has been struggling to even do basic maintenance and security updates. It’s entirely possible that was a bug, especially since it only appeared to be happening with certain users and servers.
I remember when Circuit City fired the employees that were costing them the most money. https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Lessons-in-how-Circuit-City-s-job-cuts-backfired-3298517.php
They eventually went bankrupt.
The author of the article determined that these ads are coming from the trashy ad networks that brought you such classic clickbait ads as “Doctors hate this one weird trick” and “[Current President] has slashed auto insurance rates in [your state], here’s how” that you see at the bottom of low quality news articles. So, it’s not just that X has spam ads, but they aren’t even directly selling them, which the article summarizes is a sign of desperation to get any ads, no matter how shit in quality, no matter how low paying to X they are, on the platform. At least the low tier news sites have the decency to identify them as ads and label the ad networks that is putting them up.
Well on our way to All-Despising Baby Skull
I despise Twitter’s leadership as much as the rest, but increasing ads is not at all a “cause a problem” situation Twitter doesn’t owe you ad-free usage of their platform. So no, not a scam/scummy behaviour, just bad value.
And you don’t owe Twitter your patronage. So just move on from it.
You do realize that the actual issue is that this is kind of thing is going to be normalized, so that it can spread like a plague across the corporate-touched internet, objectively making the entire thing as a whole objectively worse… right?
Because it sure doesn’t seem like it with that reply.
Reddit is already following in footsteps of twitter. unsurprising but worrying because they could influence other companies to do the same
Tech executives would disagree with you - creating a problem that users have to buy their way out of is one of the most popular business models going at the moment. The mobile gaming industry, for example, is basically $140B worth of intentionally created frustration.
There’s been so much written about this obviously scummy practice. It’s everywhere.
It’s either naive or disingenuous to suggest they’re not obviously trying to annoy cash out of people.
It’s my bandwidth. If I don’t want to use it to download ads, I don’t have to.
They are allowed to try and monetize in various ways, but there are still ethical standards that are just consistently not followed in online advertising (like doing due-diligence to make sure the company advertising isn’t some sort of transparent scam). But this change seems to be stepping away from one of the standards that is actually a legal mandate, properly labeling adverts and sponsored content as such.
Even if X wasn’t trying to make a profit. They still have cost to cover.
I don’t use it. Never have. Never saw any value in it.
I still have yet to understand Elon’s strategy with it but it’s his billions to waste.
It’s actually not his billions. He borrowed billions to finance the purchase. There are talks of the banks stepping in to protect their investment.
Twitter by J.P Morgan